3 ms·
>What indication would there be that the two are related? Do you expect them to write an email specifically stating that was the reason? I'd want to see a patt
by gruez 9mo ago
>What indication would there be that the two are related? Do you expect them to write an email specifically stating that was the reason?
I'd want to see a pattern of multiple critics being banned. In the same video he admits that neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily for seemingly no reason. Just a few months ago there was a story of someone being banned from wise for seemingly dumb reasons made it to the front page[1], so it's certainly possible for people to get banned because of pure incompetence. Therefore you'd expect a base rate of Palantir/Thiel critics banned from pure coincidence alone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45766253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45766253
>For what it's worth, that neobank received funding from his company, which definitely raises the odds of the two being related.
Right, just like you can come up with some spurious relationships from people being banned from wise, like the CEO hating pineapple on pizza (example, no idea whether he actually does) and the person being banned liking pineapple on pizza.
- input_sh 9mo ago> I'd want to see a pattern of multiple critics being banned. So it's cool if one person gets deplatformed, as long as it's not a pattern? Odd choice if you ask me. Personally if one side is financially backed by someone as insane as Thiel, I tend to need very little evidence from the other side to believe it. For what it's worth Wise was also funded by Thiel, so he'd be somewhat to blame (not fully, of course) for that incompetence as well.
- josephcsible 9mo ago> So it's cool if one person gets deplatformed, as long as it's not a pattern? Odd choice if you ask me. No, it's not cool even if it's just one person. The point is that you should absolutely be upset at the bank for arbitrarily banning someone for no reason, but not at Peter Thiel or Palantir, since it being just one non-high-profile critic means there's no good reason to think they had anything to do with it.
- input_sh 9mo agoLet me re-iterate this one more time: he invested in Qonto, he invested in Wise. Therefore, whether the actual reason is incompetence or a personal vendetta or both, he deserves some of the blame. He is the one that funded them. He is the reason they exist, as (in)competent as they are. Shifting the blame to "incompetence" does not absolve him of any guilt, he is equally to blame for that as well.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 9mo agoI don't think it's fair to blame an investor who's not the founder and has no executive/managerial control of a company for what that company does. Do you have a retirement account that invests in the S&P 500? Should you be responsible for the decisions all of the companies in it make?
- milesskorpen 9mo agoIt's extremely improbable that a random critique of Thiel led to one of the many many many companies he invests in banning this guy. It's not impossible, but - Occam's razor, it's not the simplest assumption. Your initial post suggested that we should assume that there is a link; now you're backing up to "Thiel takes some blame from bad actions by companies he invests in," which is a much weaker but more defensible claim.
- input_sh 9mo agoWas I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame? Which I've proven it doesn't and you just agreed with me that it doesn't? We can go back to my original claim if you want to, but my stance would remain the same as it did it in my first comment: if on one side of the argument we have a company directly funded by Thiel and on the other side we have literally anyone else, I personally don't need any strong evidence to believe that other side, as I am well-familiar with Thiel.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]